Solving the problems in Mass tort litigation 8
9 in an effort to streamline the voluminous litigation burdening their dockets, playing processors as fast as counsel could substitute the names of new plaintiffs. Plaintiffs named defendants simply because it was conceivable that they might have contributed to the plaintiffs’ injuries, not because they actually caused them. Plaintiffs then sought to push cases toward trial at the lowest cost possible, using the claims of the most sympathetic to carry the weaker cases. Courts emas- culated the rules of procedure and ignored the due-process rights of defendants right into the plaintiffs’ business model. Ultimately, many defendants either settled exposure, based upon crude self-reported work histories and slight shad- for nominal sums or were dismissed outright after the product identification phase 2 ended. Plaintiffs’ attorneys then claimed “no harm, no foul” against the settling or dis- missed defendants, despite the fact that in many cases, no evidence ever existed that the particular defendant caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. In fact, rather than “no harm,” there is actually enormous harm, considering the number of unsubstantiated claims filed against defendants and the cost of defending each claim. ows on a lung X-ray. Courts accepted bare-bones pleadings spit out by word retained doctor was willing to say might have a condition related to the The United States judicial system was ill-prepared to han- by the thousands. With millions of dollars at stake and ample dle the flood of litigation spawned by the use of asbes- tos in America. The deluge of cases involving numerous parties created an environment in which entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ attorneys prospered at the expense of businesses and their insurers. The attorneys organized mass screenings to troll for all potential claimants, and they roped clients in opportunity to scam the system, abuses of the judicial process how tenuous. And they sued on behalf of anyone and everyone a plaintiff- occurred on a grand scale. Fortunately, courts and commentators are beginning to reveal and rectify those abuses. 1 Unfortunately, the long history of abuses revealed itself too late for businesses sucked into the asbestos and other mass tort quagmires. For years, mass-toxic-tort plaintiffs’ attorneys operated under the same mass tort business model. It required that they sue every entity that might have even the slightest connection to the exposure, no matter b y R o y T. A t w o o d , C h r i s t o p h e r G r o v e s , a n d K e l l y W. K i n g
10 tual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so In the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 Amendments to state counterparts to address this problem. Unfortunately, courts have not used Federal Rule 11 or its that the plaintiff used a product because the product existed. based solely on the thought that they may develop evidence Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Counsel cannot satisfy this standard sonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. . . .” identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a rea- the attorney is certifying that “the allegations and other fac- Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that by filing a pleading, Courts have the tool they need to stop this abuse. Federal tiary basis for filing suit. the plaintiffs’ argument establishes their lack of an eviden- miss in mass tort cases on this ground, despite the fact that covery is complete. 4 Courts regularly deny motions to dis- due-process rights by moving to dismiss claims before dis- readily argue that defendants are seeking to abrogate their P. 27(a)(1). Yet when faced with motions to dismiss, plaintiffs mal discovery to know which entities to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. Rule 11, the committee noted: Experience shows that in practice Rule 11 has not been which parties they should have sued. Procedures exist for Tolerance of factual contentions in initial pleading by plain- to the 1993 Amendments provide: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (1983 Advisory Committee’s Note). The Notes greater range of circumstances will trigger its violation. original good-faith formula and thus it is expected that a by the rule. . . . The standard is more stringent than the facts and the law to satisfy the affirmative duty imposed stresses the need for some prefiling inquiry into both the effective in deterring abuses. . . . The new language conducting discovery before filing suit if a plaintiff needs for- Postfiling discovery is not the time for plaintiffs to determine The solution to this problem is not difficult. The tools exist sally required by rules of procedure. (Federal Rule of Civil plaintiffs must put defendants on notice of the relief that they we all know what this is about.” This requirement means that plaintiffs’ counsel, “We sue you all the time in these cases, so context cannot and does not mean, as is often heard from requirement. See , e.g ., Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Notice” in this Federal courts and most states have a “notice-pleading” of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”) Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a “statement dants against which they have legitimate claims, as univer- to relief. Doing so necessarily requires the plaintiffs to show Courts must require that plaintiffs sue only the defen- COURTS MUST SCRUTINIzE PLAINTIFFS’ PLEADINgS ments through blackmail induced by trial setting. eliminate the ability of plaintiffs’ attorneys to procure settle- number of cases clogging the dockets. Finally, courts should “amended” because of the number of parties in a case or the enforce the rules of procedure as written, not as unjustly have claims against before filing suit. Courts should also require that plaintiffs determine which entities they actually in the rules of procedure and common law. Courts should are requesting. And plaintiffs must show that they are entitled some connection between each defendant and the individual such frequency if plaintiffs pled their claims properly. defendants. The case was not a class action. The individual alleged injury. Dismissals of this nature would not occur with plaintiff fails to identify one of their products as causing the percent of the cases in which they are sued because the Miss. Some defendants are dismissed from more than 90 al. , Cause No. 2002-430, Circuit Court of Noxubee County, defendant. Prince, et al. v. Pearl River Sand & Gravel Co., et five pages and were the same for each plaintiff against each the statement of the causes of action, consumed only about allegations of each plaintiff against each defendant, including Mississippi, in which 4,200 plaintiffs separately sued 131 plaintiff’s injuries. 3 A good example comes from a silicosis case filed in connected to the injuries. attempt to show how the named defendants are in any way ally that the defendants caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, with no ings lacking in detail, in which plaintiffs merely recite gener- meritorious allegations of causation. Courts accept plead- have not historically required mass tort plaintiffs to plead ulate a viable claim at the outset of the lawsuit. Yet courts to weed out defendants against which plaintiffs cannot artic- In theory, notice-pleading requirements should be sufficient tiffs or defendants when specifically identified as made on
Recommend
More recommend
